Environmental Review of QER's Oil Shale Plant

Environmental Review of QER Pty Ltd's
Oil Shale Technology Demonstration Plant,
Gladstone, Queensland
January 2013

Prepared by: Environmental Services & Regulation, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
© The State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection) 2013
Disclaimer
This document has been prepared with all due diligence and care, based on the best available information at the time of
publication. The department holds no responsibility for any errors or omissions within this document. Any decisions made by
other parties based on this document are solely the responsibility of those parties. Information contained in this document is
from a number of sources and, as such, does not necessarily represent government or departmental policy.
February 2013

iii
Contents
Executive summary ......................................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................2
1.1 Queensland Government 2008 decision on oil shale .........................................................................................2
1.2 What is oil shale? ................................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Where is oil shale found in Queensland? ...........................................................................................................3
1.4 What are the main oil shale extraction and processing technologies?...............................................................4
Above ground processing......................................................................................................................................4
In-situ processing ..................................................................................................................................................5
Oil shale as a solid fuel..........................................................................................................................................5
Other novel technologies.......................................................................................................................................5
1.5 Role of the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection in oil shale mining and processing ...............5
1.6 Objective of this report ........................................................................................................................................6
2. Previous experience with oil shale processing at Gladstone ...................................................................................7
2.1 Southern Pacific Petroleum’s (SPP) processing technology – the Alberta Taciuk Processor (ATP) .................7
2.2 Environmental problems experienced with SPP’s processing facility.................................................................8
Dioxins...................................................................................................................................................................8
Sterilisation of oil shale reserves...........................................................................................................................8
Hazardous air emissions .......................................................................................................................................8
Noxious and offensive odours ...............................................................................................................................8
Dust nuisance........................................................................................................................................................9
Water pollution concerns.......................................................................................................................................9
Excessive noise emissions..................................................................................................................................10
Plant upsets.........................................................................................................................................................10
Greenhouse gas emissions.................................................................................................................................10
Social impact .......................................................................................................................................................10
3. QER’s Technology Demonstration Plant and data collection program ..................................................................11
3.1 Description of Technology Demonstration Plant...............................................................................................11
3.2 QER’s data acquisition, monitoring and testing program..................................................................................12
Monitoring and Testing at the Colorado Pilot Plant 2005 – 07............................................................................12
Monitoring at the Gladstone Technology Demonstration Plant during 2011–12.................................................13
4. Environmental review methodology........................................................................................................................16
4.1 Scope and criteria .............................................................................................................................................16
4.2 Review of existing information ..........................................................................................................................17
QER September 2012 report to government.......................................................................................................17
QER monitoring data...........................................................................................................................................18
4.3 On-site collection of information........................................................................................................................18
4.4 Detailed plant inspection...................................................................................................................................18
4.5 Additional information........................................................................................................................................18
5. Assessment of QER’s environmental performance................................................................................................20
5.1 Water releases and management.....................................................................................................................20

Environmental Review of QER Pty Ltd Oil Shale Technology Demonstration Plant, Gladstone, Queensland
iv
5.2 Persistent organic pollutants–Dioxins ...............................................................................................................21
Processed shale ..................................................................................................................................................22
Solids in product stream – Centrifuge solids.......................................................................................................23
Stream sediments................................................................................................................................................23
Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................................23
5.3 Air emissions and management........................................................................................................................23
Emission limits.....................................................................................................................................................23
Review of existing information.............................................................................................................................25
On-site collection of information ..........................................................................................................................25
Observations during plant inspection ..................................................................................................................26
Review of Air Emissions Monitoring Program .....................................................................................................27
Assessment of environmental performance - Air ................................................................................................28
Conclusions - Air .................................................................................................................................................38
5.4 Solid waste management..................................................................................................................................39
5.5 Noise issues......................................................................................................................................................39
5.6 Re-vegetation of waste .....................................................................................................................................39
5.7 General housekeeping......................................................................................................................................40
5.8 Resource sterilisation issue ..............................................................................................................................41
5.9 Community relations .........................................................................................................................................41
6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................42
6.1 Comparison of QER’s operation with previous operations ...............................................................................42
Dioxins.................................................................................................................................................................42
Air emissions .......................................................................................................................................................42
Plant upsets.........................................................................................................................................................42
Noise....................................................................................................................................................................42
Dust .....................................................................................................................................................................42
Stack odour .........................................................................................................................................................43
Fugitive odour......................................................................................................................................................43
Waste and process characterisation ...................................................................................................................43
Water ...................................................................................................................................................................43
Plant housekeeping.............................................................................................................................................44
Community support .............................................................................................................................................44
Greenhouse gas ..................................................................................................................................................44
6.2 Implications for an expansion of oil shale processing by QER at Gladstone ...................................................44
6.3 Lessons for other oil shale proposals ...............................................................................................................45
7. References..............................................................................................................................................................48

1
Executive summary
This report describes the independent verification findings by officers of the Department of Environment and
Heritage Protection (EHP) of an environmental performance assessment of a pilot-scale oil shale processing
facility, operated by QER Pty Ltd (QER) at its mining lease on the Stuart oil shale deposit, near Gladstone. The
report verifies that QER's facility has consistently demonstrated an acceptable level of environmental performance.
In 2008, the Queensland Government responded to community concerns about the environmental impacts and
land-use conflicts arising from oil shale mining and processing, by adopting a policy to restrict oil shale
development in Queensland to the small-scale development of the Stuart (Gladstone) oil shale deposit. Previous
processing of oil shale at Gladstone (using a different technology and operating at a much larger scale than the
QER pilot facility) generated thousands of complaints from the public—with concerns including unpleasant odours,
dust, toxic air emissions (dioxins) and health impacts. The 2008 government policy also required that the
environmental impact of any facilities developed at Gladstone for the mining and processing of oil shale be
assessed by the proponent, and that such an assessment should be independently verified by the government,
within two years of commencing operation.
QER subsequently constructed and now operates an oil shale technology demonstration plant utilising a 'Paraho'
vertical retort at the Gladstone site. The plant produces raw shale oil and will produce upgraded liquid fuels such as
diesel and jet fuel. The facility also includes a visitor education centre to showcase the technology and its products.
In September 2012, QER produced a report for the Queensland Government inter-departmental working group
which addressed oil shale issues and outlined the current environmental performance of the demonstration plant.
Officers from EHP inspected QER's facility in October 2012 and reviewed the associated environmental monitoring
records in order to evaluate and verify the plant's environmental performance. The review covered aspects of water
releases, air emissions, odour, dioxins, waste management, rehabilitation, resource utilisation, greenhouse gases,
general housekeeping, noise management and community support. Comparisons have been made in this report
with the environmental performance of technology used by the previous oil shale processing plant at the site,
environmental authority condition requirements and best practice environmental management. The report shows
much better environmental performance by the new technology employed by QER when compared to that of the
previous processing plant.
Greenhouse gas intensity of oil shale production had been a significant issue of concern for some members of the
community in respect of the previous oil shale plant. QER is monitoring greenhouse gas production and
researching possible greenhouse gas minimisation measures for scaled-up versions of the plant, with a focus on
increased energy efficiencies.
This environmental review identifies the environmental issues successfully resolved by QER. It also identifies
issues relevant to any future expansion of oil shale processing at Stuart. It concludes that QER’s environmental
performance is much better than that observed for the previous technology and proposes that any future expansion
of the Stuart oil shale deposit could be dealt with adequately using current environmental impact assessment and
approval processes.
Key factors contributing to QER plant's sound environmental performance are identified, and provide suggested
benchmarks for assessing any future oil shale proposals by other operators. The findings are also used to develop
lessons for environmental management of other oil shale developments to promote environmentally and socially
sustainable development. Caveats of the review are also outlined.

2
1. Introduction
This report describes the findings of a verification assessment conducted by EHP of environmental performance of
oil shale processing carried out by QER at its mining lease on the Stuart oil shale deposit near Gladstone. The
findings are used to develop lessons for the future management of oil shale development, in order to promote
environmentally and socially sustainable development of the sector.
1.1 Queensland Government 2008 decision on oil shale
In 2008, the Queensland Government noted that there were multiple companies in Queensland investing in
alternative fuels projects. These projects could enable Queensland to become a major producer of non-
conventional oil which could help meet the national oil demand and lead to the production of oil for export. It also
noted that Queensland had 94% of Australia’s known oil shale resources.
At that time, the government gave consideration to several potential environmental concerns related to the
development of oil shale, including:
• the location of large-scale mining activity in sensitive coastal environments
• the substantial potential water and energy requirements of the sector
• air and waste emissions from oil production plants
• implications for climate change
• socio-economic impacts arising from the location of large-scale industrial development in regional communities,
as well as near important tourist destinations.
In 2008 the government also noted significant potential land-use conflicts between what it saw as currently or
potentially high-value land-uses that it considered to be incompatible with the development of underlying oil shale
resources. These conflicts were considered to be particularly pronounced in the Proserpine Whitsunday Coast
Region where the McFarlane deposit is located. Based on those considerations, in relation to the development of
the McFarlane (Proserpine) deposit, the government decided to impose a 20 year moratorium on exploration,
mining, processing and any preparatory activities for mining of oil shale in that region.
In relation to the Stuart (Gladstone) oil shale deposit, in the 2008 the government decided that:
1. existing entitlements under a granted mining lease and granted mineral development licences should be
allowed to remain, subject to appropriate assessment and the issue of environmental authorities, under the
Environmental Protection Act 1994
2. new tenures under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and variation of existing entitlements would only be granted
within the Stuart area if necessary to allow a proponent to demonstrate the technical and commercial viability of
processing and extraction technologies
3. in the event that facilities be developed for the sampling and processing of oil shale at Stuart (Gladstone) under
ML80003, the impact of those facilities will be assessed by the proponent with independent verification by
government within 2 years of commencing operation, taking into account:
a. the effectiveness of the technology
b. the impact of the processing facility on the environment and the local community
c. the appropriateness of oil shale as part of the fuel and energy cycle.
1.2 What is oil shale?
The 2010 Survey of Energy Resources by the World Energy Council estimated there to be some 4.8 trillion barrels
of in-place oil shale resources in the world. The largest deposit identified was is in the western United States of
America (3 trillion barrels), with important deposits in China, the Russian Federation, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Brazil, Italy, Morocco, Jordon and Estonia, as well as in Australia (Carson 2011). In 2010, only Estonia,
China and Brazil produced shale oil. In each case, this was on a very small scale in relation to conventional oil
production.
Oil shale is a sedimentary rock containing solid organic material that converts into a type of crude oil when it is
heated. It is a fine-grained, sedimentary, hydrocarbon-bearing rock that occurs in many countries worldwide. It
generally occurs at shallower (<1000 metres) depths than the deeper and hotter geologic settings required to form
liquid oil. The organic matter/hydrocarbon mineral in the oil shale is called kerogen.

3
Oil shale is essentially a petroleum source rock which has not undergone the complete thermal maturation required
to convert organic matter to oil. In addition, the further geological processes of hydrocarbon migration and
accumulation which produce conventional crude oil resources trapped in subsurface reservoirs has not occurred
(Geoscience Australia 2012).
There are three main types of oil shale based on their origins; terrestrial (organic origins similar to coal-forming
swamps), lacustrine (organic origins from fresh or brackish water algae), and marine (organic origins from salt
water life including algae and dinoflagellates). The United States Geological Survey defines oil shale as 'organic-
rich shale that yields substantial quantities of oil by conventional methods of destructive distillation of the contained
organic matter, which employ low confining pressures in a closed retort system' (Duncan and Swanson, 1965).
They further define a minimum grade of 3.8% oil by weight.
Oil shale can be transformed into liquid hydrocarbons by mining, crushing, heating, processing and refining, or by
in-situ heating, oil extraction and refining. One tonne of commercial grade oil shale may yield from 50 to 200 litres
of oil. In terms of oil barrels, this equates to an approximate a third to one barrel of oil shale per tonne of oil shale
(see Plate 1).
Note that oil shale is not the same as oil-bearing shales. Oil bearing shales are shale deposits containing already
formed petroleum, also referred to as shale oil or tight oil, that is sometimes extracted from drilled wells using the
same hydraulic fracturing (fraccing) technology used in coal seam gas production. QER's retorting technology does
not require the use of hydraulic fracturing processes, instead extraction is undertaken using conventional open cut
mining techniques.
Plate 1: Specimen of Oil Shale from Stuart deposit Gladstone. This rock weighs 31.25 kg and contains 4
litres of oil (courtesy QER)
1.3 Where is oil shale found in Queensland?
Geoscience Australia (2012) identified a total Australian oil shale resource of equivalent to 22 billion barrels of oil.
Queensland was seen to have over 90% of that resource. Most of the deposits with commercial potential are
located in central Queensland, between Proserpine and Bundaberg, is as shown in Figure 1.
In these areas, the main deposits are the Stuart, Rundle and McFarlane resources located near Gladstone and
Mackay. These are lacustrine deposits, meaning they are fresh water in origin. Lesser oil shale deposits of varying
quality are also found in New South Wales, Tasmania, and Western Australia in sedimentary deposits of Permian,
Cretaceous and Cenozoic age (Geoscience Australia 2012).

4
Figure 1: Oil shale resources in Australia (Source: Geoscience Australia, 2012)
1.4 What are the main oil shale extraction and processing technologies?
Hydrocarbons in oil shale are present in the form of solid materials and hence cannot be pumped directly out of the
geologic reservoir. The rock must typically be heated to a moderate temperature to release the oil, which must be
separated and collected. The heating process is called retorting (Rand 2005).
There are several oil shale processing technologies, each of which rely on a process known as 'pyrolysis', a form of
treatment that chemically decomposes organic materials by heat in the absence of oxygen. These technologies
may be classified in different ways, such as by: particle size; method of heating the shale; the nature of the heat
carrier; and the location where pyrolysis occurs.
The location where heating and pyrolysis process occurs is the simplest way of classifying technology types. This
division also reflects differing environmental issues. When contrasting technology by site of oil extraction, oil shale
processing techniques fall broadly into two main classes, surface processing and in-situ processing. In the former,
the oil shale is mined and brought to the surface for processing. In-situ processing leaves the shale in the ground
and uses a variety of techniques to extract the petroleum product.
Above ground processing
Above ground processing involves 3 major steps: (1) oil shale mining and ore preparation, (2) pyrolysis of oil shale
in a retort vessel to produce shale derived oil, and (3) processing shale derived oil to produce oil refinery feedstock,
certified fuels in their own right and high-value chemicals. This is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Generalised flowchart for above ground oil shale processing
Mining Retorting/
Process
Oil
Upgrading
Fuel & Chemical
Markets
Oil Shale
Resource

5
The now defunct Southern Pacific Petroleum’s Alberta Taciuk Processor (ATP) and QER’s Paraho technology are
examples of above ground processing that have been used in Queensland.
Mining to retrieve the resource can be either by surface mining or by underground mining. Open pit mining is
usually preferred, on economic and safety grounds, where the depth of the target resource is not excessive to
access by removing overburden. Overburden removal may require blasting in some cases due to the physical
properties of the material but has not been necessary at the Gladstone Stuart deposit.
In-situ processing
The other alternative to surface retorting is producing shale oil underground using in-situ technology. This is
favoured for deeper, thicker deposits, not as amenable to surface or deep-mining methods. The main steps for
underground in-situ processing are shown in Figure 3. This form of processing is being currently trialled in the
United States. This process has the advantage of minimising, or in the case of true in-situ, eliminating the need for
mining and surface pyrolysis. It does this by heating the oil shale resource in its natural depositional setting.
Figure 3: Generalised flowchart for true in-situ oil shale processing
In-situ processing can be as simple as turning the oil shale deposit to rubble and setting it alight, or it can involve
quite complex processes. The simplest form is in-situ retorting which involves heating oil shale in place, extracting
the resulting liquid petroleum product from the ground, and transporting it to an upgrading facility.
Shell (2006) contrasts its 'in-situ conversion process' (ICP) with other in-situ processes that rely on air or oxygen
injection and require that relatively high permeability exist in the deposit or be created through hydraulic fracturing.
Once the target deposit is fractured, air is injected, the deposit is ignited to heat the formation, and the resulting
shale oil is moved through natural or man-made fractures to production holes that transport it to the surface.
Stated disadvantages of that process include difficulties in controlling the pyrolysis temperature and the flow of
produced oil, resulting in poor oil and gas quality combined with low oil recovery efficiency because portions of the
deposit are left unheated.
Shell's more complex ICP process involves blocking off sections of an oil shale deposit using freeze walls, heating
the oil shale via conduction which releases the shale oil and oil shale gas from the rock whereby it can be pumped
to the surface and further processed into fuels.
Oil shale as a solid fuel
There are also cases in which oil shale is burned directly as a fuel without processing being undertaken to create
petroleum liquids. This has been a common practice in Estonia where unprocessed oil shale is burned as boiler
fuel for electric power plants.
Other novel technologies
This review has briefly outlined the more common methods of oil shale processing which involve retorting. Other
novel technologies, such as solvent extraction, are possibilities but are beyond the scope of this report. One
example is the Rendall Process mooted by Blue Ensign Technologies Limited for Queensland’s Julia Creek oil
shale resource.
1.5 Role of the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection in oil
shale mining and processing
EHP is primarily involved in management of oil shale activities through its role as the 'administering authority' for
the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act). This act imposes a 'general environmental duty', requiring all
persons engaged in any conduct in Queensland, or outside of the state that may affect Queensland’s environment,
to undertake their activities using all reasonable and practicable means to avoid or minimise environmental harm.
In-situ
Processing
pyrolysis
Oil
retrieval
Oil upgrading Fuel & chemical
markets
Oil Shale
resource

6
The act also creates a requirement for persons engaged in mining activities and petroleum and gas refining
activities, such as oil shale mining and shale oil production, to obtain an 'environmental authority' (EA—sometimes
referred to as a licence) from EHP under the EP Act. The environmental authority sets out: the operating conditions
to be met to reduce the likelihood of causing environmental harm; financial assurance requirements; and
rehabilitation targets. Important environmental performance issues addressed in the environmental authority
include:
• air, dust and odour emissions
• groundwater protection
• management of potentially acid forming materials
• stormwater releases
• wastewater treatment
• mining and oil processing wastes
• noise management
• mining voids
• environmental monitoring.
EHP is responsible for enforcing compliance with the authority.
1.6 Objective of this report
This report follows on from the 2008 government decision on oil shale development in Queensland. The holder of
the relevant mining lease, exploration permit for minerals and mineral development licences for the Stuart
resource, QER, has developed facilities for the sampling and processing of oil shale at Stuart (Gladstone), under
ML80003. They have undertaken monitoring and reporting of the impact of those facilities on the community and
environment. This has involved the construction and operation of a technology demonstration plant (TD Plant)
using Paraho II retorting technology and a visitor centre at its Yarwun site, and the submission of an assessment
report to the Queensland Government (QER 2012).
The 2008 decision required government verification of the proponent's assessment of the impacts of the oil shale
processing facility, taking into account, inter alia, the effectiveness of the technology and the impact of the
processing facility on the environment and the local community.
As part of this verification, EHP staff conducted an inspection of the QER's TD plant on 23-24 October 2012,
including collection of relevant environmental monitoring data for review. The broad objectives of the site inspection
of the QER TD Plant were to:
• gather information required for verifying the performance of QER's TD plant, and impacts on the environment
and community
• inspect the plant in operating condition and verify that all major emissions & waste outputs are monitored and
fugitive emissions are minimised
• ascertain whether the significant environmental issues that arose with operation of the previous oil shale
processing plant (the ATP operated by SPP) have been resolved with the new processing technology
• assess the level of compliance with the statutory requirements relating to the management of air, water, waste,
and noise as specified in the environmental authority (EA) conditions
• ensure that environmental monitoring is conducted in accordance with QA/QC requirements of the monitoring
methods
• assess the operation of pollution control equipment to ensure that these mitigation measures are available and
effective.
The objective of this report is to detail the findings of this assessment so as to independently verify the QER (2012)
impact assessment conclusions, and to facilitate informed development of any future policy on environmental
management of oil shale developments.

7
2. Previous experience with oil shale processing at Gladstone
The previous holder of the Stuart oil shale tenements, Southern Pacific Petroleum (SPP) and its partner Suncor
Energy, also constructed a research and development oil shale processing plant at Gladstone. SPP's plant was
much larger and used different technology to that currently used by QER. It operated from 1999 to 2004, producing
more than 1.5 million barrels of oil. QER purchased most of the assets of SPP and its associated companies in
2004 and subsequently decommissioned and removed the retort, dryer, oil recovery plant and much of the ancillary
equipment, before installing its own facility.
SPP's oil shale processing plant caused multiple environmental problems, which created a legacy of public distrust
in oil shale development, particularly in sensitive coastal environments and near urban areas. Concerns about the
environmental impacts of oil shale processing were a significant factor in the former government’s 2008 policy
decision to place restrictions on oil shale development in Queensland
This section describes the technology used by SPP and the environmental problems that arose, to enable
comparison with the environmental performance of the technology being used in QER’s demonstration plant.
2.1 Southern Pacific Petroleum’s (SPP) processing technology – the Alberta
Taciuk Processor (ATP)
SPP employed Alberta Taciuk Processor (ATP) technology to extract oil from the oil shale. A schematic of the ATP
processor is provided in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Schematic of Southern Pacific Petroleum’s ATP processor.
The ATP operated by SPP was a horizontal rotary kiln with three separate compartments. Dried shale (supplied
from a rotary dryer) was fed into the preheat zone to further dry the shale to the required moisture content. This
drove off odorous 'preheat steam'. In the second stage, shale was heated to 500°C in the retort zone in the
absence of oxygen, which caused pyrolysis. Oil vapours were driven out via the vapour tube to be cleaned,
upgraded and refined.
Solids passed from the retort to the combustion chamber where air was introduced to burn residual carbon,
providing heat to drive the process. These hot solids were then passed back via a helix into the outer sections of
the ATP were they move backwards exchanging heat with the retort and preheat zone prior to discharge near the
entrance end of the ATP. Combustion emissions passed to the main stack via turbo-scrubbers to reduce
particulate, sulphur dioxide and odour emissions.

8
2.2 Environmental problems experienced with SPP’s processing facility
The ATP oil shale processing facility operated by SPP experienced a number of significant environmental
problems. These are discussed below.
Dioxins
Dioxins are members of a group of chemicals known as 'persistent organic pollutants' (POPs), the production and
use of which was banned by the Stockholm Convention 2001. This is an international environmental treaty that
Australia has signed and ratified that commits governments to reducing, and where feasible, eliminating the
production and environmental releases of POPs.
During the early years of operation of the ATP plant, significant concentrations of polychlorinated dioxins and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (known collectively as dioxins) were detected in air emissions and the processed
shale (Suncor Energy 2000) waste. At that time, predictions about the large amounts of waste processed shale
likely to be generated from the ATP plant, together with the relatively high dioxin concentrations found in the waste,
led to some predictions that the SPP oil shale facility would become Australia’s largest source of and repository for
dioxins (Suncor Energy 2000). Misgivings were also expressed about the potential impacts of dioxin releases on
the Great Barrier World Heritage Area (Greenpeace, 2001).
SPP investigated dioxin formation in its ATP plant and introduced process changes (including altered atmospheric
chemistry in the ATP and more efficient turbo-scrubbing to reduce air emission particulate levels) in an effort to
resolve this issue. The environmental authority conditions at that time prohibited placement of the waste processed
shale in the mining void, instead requiring the waste processed shale to be kept in a secure landfill type situation.
These requirements remain in QER’s current environmental authority as it manages this waste repository.
Sterilisation of oil shale reserves
In its environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Stage 2 expansion of the mine and processing plant, SPP
proposed to excavate down to the rich Kerosene Creek Member (layer) while leaving deeper oil shale sequences
untouched. The EIS also proposed placing the waste processed shale (which as noted above had been found to
contain high levels of dioxins) above these important deeper resources.
Given the likely groundwater connection between the mining voids and Port Curtis, and the desirability of not
disturbing any repository for persistent organic pollutants, this waste management approach would very likely have
sterilised significant underlying state oil shale resources and prevented future commercial extraction. This was a
key consideration of the government during the evaluation of SPP's EIS for Stage 2 of the Stuart Oil Project.
Hazardous air emissions
Given the emissions profile and nature of odours emitted from the plant, concerns were expressed to the
government that the ATP plant posed a health risk to the community. Concerns centred on hazardous air pollutants
such as dioxins (as discussed above), hexavalent chromium, reduced sulphur compounds and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH).
The government commissioned an independent Health Risk Assessment (HRA) report by the consultants, Toxikos,
which was overseen by the Stuart Facilitation Working Group comprising technical and community members. The
HRA report concluded that no acute or chronic health risks could be identified as a result of exposure to air
emissions from the Stuart Oil Project.
However, the HRA report also concluded that some community members living near the oil shale facility would
smell odours from the plant during its normal operations, and that intense, unpleasant odour would be experienced
occasionally. The HRA report further concluded that a single compound, thiophene, was primarily responsible for
the odour. The HRA recognised that, while not representing an acute or chronic health risk, the offensive odours
emanating from the SPP plant may impact detrimentally on the health and well being of local community members.
Noxious and offensive odours
Over two thousand public complaints were received over the several years of the ATP plant operation, particularly
from the township of Targinnie but also from Gladstone, Yarwun and other industrial facilities in the Gladstone
development area. Most of these concerned offensive odours. The complaint total increases in significance when
one considers that the plant did not run continually over this period, but was operated for a series of campaigns.

9
The offensive odours produced varied in strength depending upon meteorology, dryer operations, stability of the
drying and retorting processes and the less-than-perfect operational availability of air pollution control technology.
Some residents complained that the odours causing tingling mucous membranes, nose bleeds, nausea and
headaches. The most important odour sources were found to be the shale dryer and the preheat zone steam.
Emissions from the dryer were treated to remove particulates (dust) but not odour. In addition, particulate removal
did not employ best practice methods—relying solely on the use of cyclones.
The administering authority acted to reduce odorous emissions from the dryer by placing limits on its operating
temperature. This approach reduced premature pyrolysis due to shale fines charring in the dryer and hence the
generation of odours. However, this also restricted plant throughput and oil production. In addition, the odorous
preheat steam from the ATP processor was directed to a burner at the base of the stack. This raised stack gas
temperature and increased plume buoyancy as an aid to air pollutant dispersion. The burner provided some
reduction in odorous emissions but also impacted on production by tripping gas safety equipment. These problems
were particularly relevant in plant upset conditions when odour control was more critical.
Turbo scrubbers, were also retrofitted for the removal of sulphur dioxide and particulates from the ATP flue gas, to
reduce odour concentrations. However despite very large reductions, the end result was that odour emissions were
still averaging tens of thousands of odour units and the plant was still causing complaints. By contrast, no odour
complaints have been received about the current QER Paraho facility and stack odour concentrations are
significantly lower (see section 5.3).
Dust nuisance
The ATP processor was designed to process fine feed-stock. The shale feed was initially around 10 mm in
diameter, with further crumbling of the material as it progressed through the dryer, the ATP processor and
processed shale handling equipment. The resultant waste processed shale was black, fine grained and relatively
easily picked up by wind or vehicles. This led to many complaints about dust nuisance from the ATP plant. In the
event of plant upsets or problems with the processed shale handling equipment, fugitive emissions of dust from the
plant became a significant problem (see Plate 2). This contrasts markedly with Plate 3, showing the absence of
nuisance dust emissions from QER's facility during 2012.
SPP c.2000 QER 2012
Plate 2: Dust emissions from SPP Plant Plate 3: 2012 Daytime operation of QER plant
with processed shale handling issues evident. showing dust free retorting and process shale
handling. Note lack of black dust.
Water pollution concerns
Several incidents occurred at the ATP plant, resulting in a breach of the EA's water release conditions. Issues
included excessive amounts of suspended solids in the mine water discharge and (on one occasion) high ammonia
concentrations in the release from the processing plant area. The ammonia was generated by the scrubbing of
nitrogen from the aquatic component of the product liquid and the release was caused by a failure to adequately
contain flare seal water.

10
The EIS for the Stage 1 operation of the ATP plant included provision for process wastewater treatment, via steam
stripping, followed by biological treatment in a water treatment cell. Commitments to water treatment were included
in the environmental management overview strategy for the operation and conditions for granting the mining lease.
However, SPP was unable to successfully operate the water treatment cell and abandoned such treatment.
Stripped sour water was instead diluted with clean water prior to moistening waste processed shale. The EA
prohibited the disposal of sour water in the mine pit.
Excessive noise emissions
The operation of SPP's ATP plant generated many noise complaints from local residents, many of whom
complained of excessive noise and sleep disturbance. The major concern was low frequency noise identified as
resonance created by gas flows through the large main stack. Noise from the ATP plant was also identified in the
above-mentioned HRA report as having the potential to cause annoyance—particularly at night and during adverse
weather conditions.
Plant upsets
The ATP plant experienced a range of plant upset operating conditions. With experience, SPP was able to
significantly reduce frequency of upset conditions. However, a key issue during upset conditions was the need to
remove hot shale from the ATP and to replace it with cool inert material. Hot semi-processed shale could not be left
in the processor unless it was rotating as that could have caused structural damage to the plant through warping.
Problems with the processed shale handling circuit, such as clogging and failure of cyclones, led to multiple
incidents involving large-scale dust emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions
Heating oil shale for retorting, whether aboveground or in-situ, requires significant energy inputs. This energy is
typically sourced by burning fossil fuels, either product gas from retorting or external sources such as natural gas.
Consequently, the production of petroleum products derived from oil shale is generally expected to involve greater
emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, compared with conventional crude oil production and refining.
Additional carbon dioxide is produced by the high temperatures typical of surface retorting. Carbon dioxide is also
emitted from thermal decomposition of the mineral carbonates contained in oil shale, commensurate with the
amount of carbonate present.
Although greenhouse gas emissions were not conditioned specifically in SPP’s environmental authority, they were
raised as a significant issue by the environmental groups that campaigned against the industry, including agitating
for product bans. Management of greenhouse gases was an important consideration in the EIS produced for SPP’s
proposed Stuart Oil Shale Stage 2 proposal. Greenhouse gas emissions are seen as one of the major
environmental challenges for the oil shale industry in the United States. However to promote fair comparison, this is
viewed on a life cycle approach with net carbon emissions desired to be equal to or less than conventional
petroleum. This is the so called 'wells to wheels' comparison (Intek 2010).
Social impact
SPP's operation of the ATP had a significant impact on the local community. As already noted, over two thousand
complaints were received during the operational life of the plant, from residents in nearby townships and from the
broader Gladstone area. Apart from the detrimental impacts on local amenity, residents also expressed concerns
about the negative impacts of the ATP plant on property values.
This created a legacy of a broad community-wide distrust of oil shale development in the Gladstone area. This
legacy has heightened the need for the oil shale industry to seek to adopt best practice environmental
management and to communicate openly with the community about its environmental performance. As discussed
later in this report, the need for such an approach has been embraced by QER as part of its 'social licence' to
operate.

11
3. QER’s Technology Demonstration Plant and data collection
program
3.1 Description of Technology Demonstration Plant
Key elements of QER’s technology demonstration plant operation are:
• an open cut mine and run-of-mine (ROM) stockpile
• a feed preparation plant where ROM shale is crushed to make lump shale feed
• a briquetting plant where shale fines screened out at the feed preparation plant are moulded into briquettes
• a prepared shale stockpile, with reclaim via front end loader
• a dryer to dry the feed shale and briquettes to retort design moisture content
• the oil shale retort (Paraho II processor) and ancillary equipment
• flue gas treatment facilities for the Paraho and dryer flue gases, including bag-houses and thermal oxidisers
• processed shale moistening and transfer facilities
• oil recovery section including scrubber and electrostatic precipitator
• sour water steam stripping plant
• oil upgrading facilities including distillation and hydro-treater
• oil product storage tanks and load-out facility
• processed shale handling and disposal
• emergency gas flare
• associated utilities including natural gas burners, compressors
• support services including offices, plant control room, sewage treatment, warehouse and laboratory
• a visitor information centre.
A schematic of the overall plant which integrates drying, retorting and fuel upgrading is shown at Figure 5.
Figure 5: Schematic showing elements of QER’s integrated technology demonstration plant.

12
At the heart of the operation is the Paraho II processor. The Paraho is a stationary vertical kiln which is fed raw
shale from the top. The speed through the retort is governed by the rate at which solids are withdrawn at the
bottom. There are three gas inlets or so called distributors to the retort. Oil vapours generated when the shale is
heated move towards the top of the retort, where they are extracted via two vapour ducts.
The major environmental management areas for QER's oil shale feed preparation activities include:
• controlling dust during crushing, screening
• loading of shale onto conveyors and transferring to feed bins
• preventing premature pyrolysis or overheating of oil shale during drying, so as to minimise odorous emissions
• managing dryer air emissions, including the products of combustion (NOx, particulates, CO, SO2, odour and
organic compounds e.g. VOC)
• ensuring effective cleaning of dryer flue gases
• minimising noise emissions from the burner, materials conveyors and bag-house cleaning equipment.
The dryer at the QER site is served by covered conveyors and a dust extraction system (bag-house) to minimise
dust from material transfer. The dryer emissions are treated in a bag-house and regenerative thermal oxidiser.
Odour generation is prevented and premature pyrolysis avoided by applying lower dryer operating temperatures in
the belt dryer, compared to those for SPP’s rotary dryer. This creates a more even and lower internal temperature
profile than that for the rotary kiln used by SPP. A continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) measures the
quality of air emissions from the dryer. After drying, the raw shale is carried to the top of the Paraho II retort for
processing.
3.2 QER’s data acquisition, monitoring and testing program
Key environmental monitoring programs undertaken by QER to characterise emissions, wastes and understand the
oil production processes included programs at Rifle, Colorado, in the USA and at Gladstone in Queensland.
Monitoring and Testing at the Colorado Pilot Plant 2005 – 07
Monitoring and testing at the Paraho test facility at Rifle Colorado involved:
• bulk sampling from 3 locations to obtain a range of Queensland shales for testing
• shipment of the Queensland shales to the USA for processing at the Paraho pilot plant in Colorado
• detailed characterisation of the retort product gas stream—iso-kinetic testing was undertaken prior to thermal
oxidation to thoroughly characterise the gases produced for each shale type (Stuart, Stuart North and
McFarlane) and under each retort operating mode (heating, combustion and combined mode). A minimum of 6
samples per scenario were collected resulting in a total of over 50 iso-kinetic sample runs. A broad range of
parameters (e.g. organics including PCDD/F, inorganics, metals, potentially odorous S based compounds,
priority pollutants etc.) were all measured
• sour water characterisation—consistent with the approach taken for retort product gas sampling, sour water
samples were collected during a broad range of operating scenarios (all combinations of shale type and retort
operating mode) and the samples were analysed for a broad range of analytes.
• processed shale samples, generated under all shale type and operating mode scenarios, were collected and
shipped back to Australia for further analysis. Some bulk sour water samples were also shipped back
• CSIRO was engaged to construct and operate a bench scale, 2-stage sour water stripping plant. This facility
stripped the bulk sour water samples, thereby generating stripped sour water intended to be representative of
stripped sour water from a larger scale plant
• leachate trials—an extensive leachate test program was undertaken to characterise processed shale generated
at the Colorado pilot plant and also to characterise leachate quality using kinetic leach columns. This program
also included a range of kinetic leaching column tests on mine wastes obtained predominantly from drill core
sourced at QER’s Stuart deposit. The environmental geochemical characterisation program, to date, has
generated approximately 80,000 analytical results over some 5 years. This level of geochemical
characterisation for a mining project, which is still at the conceptual stage is (according to QER) unprecedented
in Australia and highlights QER’s commitment to understanding and effectively managing the risks associated
with the project

13
• a peer review was also undertaken and comprehensive quality assurance protocols applied for the
geochemistry/leachate program.
Monitoring at the Gladstone Technology Demonstration Plant during 2011–12
The following list details monitoring conducted at QER's Technology Demonstration (TD) Plant at Gladstone during
2011–12:
• Process variables—a vast array of process variables (~1000) are measured and logged continuously at QER’s
Technology Demonstration Plant.
• A stack testing program is carried out monthly and measures a broad range of parameters at the 2 main
Technology Demonstration Plant stacks (i.e. at the plant thermal oxidiser (TOx) and dryer regenerative thermal
oxidiser (RTOx) stack).
• Continuous monitoring of SO2, NOx and particulates is undertaken at the plant TOx and dryer RTOx stacks. All
results are logged.
• Water releases from site are monitored frequently (minimum weekly) during discharge events, however the
frequency of discharge occurrences is low. Since retort commissioning and operations commenced in
September 2011, stormwater runoff has been mostly contained and re-used on site. A single discharge event
(56ML) occurred in April 2012 due to a period of heavy rainfall in the Gladstone region. Several samples were
collected at the point of release and subsequently analysed.
• Characterisation of sour water, stripped sour water and processed shale has commenced and will continue
during technology demonstration plant operations. The program will monitor a broad range of parameters. This
work is intended to complement results from the abovementioned leachate test program. QER undertakes a
broad groundwater monitoring program including compliance bores and regional bore monitoring. An extensive
stream gauging network, spanning 5 regional creeks and gullies, has been operational for several years. In
addition to the stream flow data delivered by the stream gauging program, water quality determinations are also
undertaken at regional sampling locations during flow events.
• QER has contributed equipment to regional air monitoring stations used in Gladstone and Targinnie in the past,
and has recently confirmed agreement to contribute to the Queensland Government's Gladstone region ambient
air monitoring program for the next 3 years. This will ensure that adequate ambient monitoring services, and
real time data, are readily available to Gladstone and Targinnie communities, and also available to regulators
and industry proponents via a publically accessible web page.
• QER is a founding member and continuing participant in the Port Curtis Integrated Monitoring Program (PCIMP)
which monitors waters in Port Curtis. In mid-2012, the Premier announced that a partnership agreement would
be established to ensure the ongoing monitoring and improvement of Gladstone Harbour. The Gladstone
Healthy Harbour Partnership will include representatives from government, industry, research, community and
other interests. QER has committed to being actively engaged in the planning and scoping phase of this
partnership.
• Further detail on the test work carried out at the Gladstone is program is provided in Table 1.

14
Table 1: Sampling and Analysis Program at the Gladstone Technology Demonstration Plant
Stream
sampled
Frequency Analysis Remarks
Feed shale
(composites)
Collected
automatically
over 12 hours
MFA assay (% oil, % loss +
gas, % retort water)
Free moisture
Ultimate analysis
Establishes grade in LT0M
Selected full yield windows (C,
organic C, H, N, S, O and ash)
Feed shale
(grab samples)
6 hours MFA assay
Free moisture
Ultimate analysis
Particle size distribution
As above
Used for retort balances
Selected full yield windows
Processed
shale (grab
samples)
6 hours MFA assay
Ultimate analysis
Particle size distribution
% moisture
Selected full yield windows
Final moisture to confirm
processed shale wetting with SSW
Briquettes As required Tests for compressive
strength and drop shatter
resistance
To confirm the ability of briquettes
to withstand shale feed transfers to
retort
Product oil At end of each
run
% H2O
Sediment
Density (SG)
Pour point
Full analysis
Simulated distillation
Selected full yield windows,
including C, H, N, S, O
Centrifuge
clean oil
As required Solids in clean oil To confirm performance of
centrifuge
Retort off-gas Selected runs Oil mist particle size
distribution
Recycle gas Online GC,
frequency as
required e.g.
2-4 hours
Primary components by
online gas chromatography
Detection tube estimations
N2, H2, CO, CO2, C1, C2, C3, C4,
C5+, H2S
H2S, NH3, SO2
Recycle gas As required
(e.g. daily)
S and N compounds by gas
sampling for analysis on lab
GC
H2S, NH3, SO2
Recycle gas Continuous Oxygen

15
Stream
sampled
Frequency Analysis Remarks
Recycle gas Selected runs Gas samples taken off-site
for full fuel and sulphur
species (various
laboratories))
N2, H2, CO, CO2, and full
hydrocarbon analysis to C13+
Full sulphur speciation, including
organic and inorganic compounds
Other trace compounds
Product gas Selected runs Full sampling on-site and
analysis by offsite
laboratories and/or onsite
mobile laboratory (note this
will be done on design basis
runs)
Hydrocarbons
Ammonia
Particulate
Sulphur species
Trace metals
Product gas As required
when Gas 1
running
Gas 1 overheads for NH3,
SO2 and H2S on lab GC
Gas 1 absorber water for
NH3 and S species
Required to establish the partition
of species to absorber water as a
function of pH
Fuel gas As required
when Gas 1
and Gas 2
running
Gas 1 as above
Gas 2 overheads for H2S
and other species
As above
To establish final H2S in Gas 2
overheads, as well as any
remaining sulphur species, and
hydrocarbons in fuel gas
Sour Water Each selected
HMB run at
end
Bulk characteristics Detailed
analysis on selected design
basis runs
Ammonia, H2S, pH, Total Organic
C, Total Inorganic C
Full analysis
Steam-stripped
sour water
Up to hourly
when plant is
being
steadied,
otherwise 6-
hourly
H2S and ammonia, pH Required prior to sending SSW to
the storage tank for use in
processed shale moistening
Oil Products As required All tests as for raw oil (see
above)
Specific tests for fuel
products i.e. ultra-low
sulphur diesel or jet fuel
D86 distillation curve and N content
done on-site, other tests offsite in
specialised oil laboratories

16
4. Environmental review methodology
The QER environmental review was undertaken in general accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZS ISO
19011:2003–Guidelines for Quality and/or Environmental Management Systems Auditing. Environmental
requirements and issues were identified and objective evidence sought on conformity with the requirements and
presence of effective environmental management measures to address environmental issues.
An inspection of the plant and mine site was undertaken by a group of officers from EHP, on 23 and 24 October
2012, as part of the verification assessment and review conducted by EHP. The inspection focussed heavily on
identifying and assessing the environmental management practices employed at the premises.
The review conducted by EHP also relied on consideration information supplied by QER, including monitoring
records, management plans, presentations by QER personnel and consultants, written reports and other
documents relating to the Paraho II facility. In conducting the review, prime consideration was given by EHP to the
environment issues of air, water, odour, noise, waste management and general environmental housekeeping. The
review was conducted in five stages, as follows:
1. Preliminary information review; including review of QER’s submission to the Queensland Government
Interdepartmental Working Group on Oil Shale and existing air monitoring data covering the period July 2011–
June 2012.
2. On-site information gathering; including a preliminary meeting to address induction requirements, outline
objectives, discuss firsthand the plant’s operation with key QER personnel, and observe the plant’s operation
and associated environmental monitoring program.
3. Information review; covering information collected and further information provided by QER in response to
questions arising during the site inspection and data review.
4. Draft review and provide opportunity for QER to comment on the report.
5. Finalising the review report after reviewing QER’s comments.
In conducting the review, the departmental officers under took the following tasks:
• Identified the review criteria.
• Reviewed the background information on the activities and the process carried out at the premises.
• Inspected the plant in operating condition to verify that all major emissions & waste outputs are monitored and
fugitive emissions are minimised.
• Collected and verified evidence to support findings related to the review criteria.
• Determined whether the major environmental issues that arose with operation of the previous (and now
removed) shale processing plant (the ATP) by the former site owners (SPP) have been avoided or resolved with
QER's new Paraho processing technology.
• Assessed environmental monitoring data to ensure that environmental monitoring is conducted in accordance
with quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements of the monitoring methods.
• Assessed the performance of existing pollution control equipment to ensure that appropriate mitigation
measures are available and effective.
• Reviewed the facility’s compliance with legislation administered by EHP, including statutory requirements
relating to the management of air, water, waste, and noise as specified in the Environmental Authority
conditions.
4.1 Scope and criteria
The scope of the verification assessment and review conducted by EHP was limited to an examination of the
activities at the QER Paraho plant, located at Yarwun near Gladstone. The mining activities at this site were
generally not considered part of this review, with the exception of review of the effectiveness of the mine water
management system, as this serves process plant waste disposal areas as well as the mine.
It should be noted that, due to the relatively small quantities of shale material processed through the plant, mining
was not being actively carried out during the inspection. Mining had previously occurred on a campaign basis to
obtain sufficient raw oil shale to allow processing for an extended period. However, crushing and screening of
mined oil shale did occur during the inspection.

17
The time period covered by the environmental audit included 2 days of site inspection covering the environmental
management practices adopted at the facility and data collected over approximately 1 year of operation. Review
criteria are the requirements against which the activities carried out at the premises are assessed based on the
objectives and scope of the review. The criteria chosen to ensure that the objectives were met included the
following sources:
• Environmental Protection Act 1994, in particular the general environmental duty and best practice environmental
management
• Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 which includes an environmental management hierarchy,
environmental values and relevant air quality objectives
• Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 which includes an environmental management hierarchy for
avoiding water contamination, prescribes water quality guidelines and defines environmental values of waters
• Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011 which prescribes the principles of management of the waste such as
the polluter pays principal, the user pays principal and the product stewardship principal
• conditions of Environmental Authority No. MIN100479806 and PEN100375209.
4.2 Review of existing information
Prior to visiting the site, all environmental monitoring data and the background information related to the project
was reviewed by EHP. These are summarised in the following sections.
QER September 2012 report to government
In September 2012, QER submitted a report to government entitled: QER Submission to the Queensland
Government Interdepartmental Working Group on Oil Shale. The report described the performance of QER's
Technology Demonstration Plant.
The information reviewed from that report includes:
• technical information about the Paraho process, product upgrading and the site operations
• a detailed description of the activities carried out on the site
• process flow diagram showing all unit operations carried out on the premises, detailed discussion of unit
operations, and detailed lists of all process inputs and outputs
• pollution control equipment and pollution control techniques employed on the premises and the features used to
suppress or minimise emissions, including dust and odour
• back-up measures employed that will act in the event of failure of primary measures to minimise the likelihood of
plant upsets and adverse air impacts
• a description of how process water is treated and utilised
• overview of the TD plant environmental performance
• process consistency and stability under different operating conditions
• how the TD plant demonstrates compliance with the state’s environmental standards
• commitment for sustainable oil shale development
• steps adopted in building community support.

18
QER monitoring data
QER also provided plant environmental monitoring data for about a year of operation. This included the following
information:
• Stack (air emission) monitoring data based on actual measurements on samples taken from the facility included
parameters such as particulates, sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (as NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), total
volatile organic compounds (VOC as n-propane), speciated VOCs, hexavalent chromium (CrVI), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), dioxins, trace metals and odour causing substances (such as hydrogen sulphide,
thiophene, carbon disulphide, carbonyl sulphide, total reduced sulphurs and a mixture of odorants measured as
odour concentration).
• Air emission data presented as concentrations at standard temperature and pressure (STP) and the oxygen
reference level and the mass emission rate.
• Stack monitoring conducted when the plant was operating at full designed capacity.
• Centrifuge solids from the oil recovery plant (expected to have the highest persistent/hazardous substances)
analysed for dioxin concentrations.
• Processed shale analysed for dioxin concentrations.
4.3 On-site collection of information
A number of meetings were held with the QER engineers and environmental professionals on 23 and 24 October
2012 to discuss the plant operations in detail. The purpose of the on-site meeting with QER was to collect on-site
additional information and verifiable evidence to determine whether audit criteria were being complied with.
The New Environmental Quality (New EQ) stack testing scientists also attended the meeting to explain the stack
monitoring methods used and how the related QA/QC requirements applied. A guided tour of surface water
monitoring sites and a presentation on the water monitoring program was provided by QER’s consultant water
testing scientist.
4.4 Detailed plant inspection
A detailed inspection of the facility was conducted by EHP staff to allow them to understand the Paraho process,
and to compare and contrast the environmental performance of the Paraho technology with SPP’s ATP plant. In
addition, the inspection sought evidence of environmental compliance and performance of the Paraho plant by:
• inspecting the new EQ mobile air quality monitoring lab
• making personal observations of the plant in operation
• gathering evidence of environmental management measures employed and benchmarking these against
general environmental duty, environmental authority conditions and the benchmarking the operation against
best practice environmental management.
Detailed inspections of the plant were conducted for about 3 hours each day. During that period the plant was
operating at the normal capacity of 2.5 tonnes per hour. An inspection of the mine pit, the mine water management
system, the ex-pit waste rock dump area where processed shale is disposed and general vegetation established
around the mine was also included.
4.5 Additional information
Following the site inspections and assessment of QER’s submissions and information, clarification and supporting
information was sought by EHP on a number of matters. These included:
• clarification of the purpose of some items of equipment
• additional information on the Paraho process
• QA/QC measures applied to water testing
• supporting information on revegetation of waste deposits
• information on assessment of acid mine drainage potential of mined materials and processed shale
• plant status during air emission monitoring

19
• detailed information on hexavalent chromium and dioxin testing
• information on results of community surveys and feedback from visitors to the information centre
• detail on monitoring programs to characterise the environment, retorting process and its wastes, products and
emissions
• details on the maintenance program for air pollution control equipment.

20
5. Assessment of QER’s environmental performance
This chapter evaluates QER's environmental performance in relation to the key environmental issues of water
management, dioxins, air emissions, solid wastes, noise emissions, land rehabilitation, industrial plant house
keeping, potential resource sterilisation and community relations.
5.1 Water releases and management
The EA issued for the QER facility under the EP Act authorises water releases to the environment from two
sources at the QER site, provided it meets the specified water quality limits. Water discharge monitoring data
reviewed by EHP showed that the company has complied with these release limits. These two sources are the
outlets of the mine water management system (called WP2) and its emergency spillway (called WP3) and,
secondly, the outlet of the clean water holding pond (called WP1). Discharges from WP2 and WP3 flow to an
ephemeral freshwater water course called Gully C and then ultimately to Port Curtis. Discharges from the clean
water holding pond flow direct to Port Curtis.
Stormwater from the processing plant flows into the clean water holding pond and that from the mine, into the mine
water management system. As stormwater from the plant site potentially contains oily contamination, an oil/water
separation process is employed to treat potentially oily waste streams prior to them being admitted into the clean
water holding pond.
Another source of waste water is from utilities including boilers, raw water treatment plant and cooling plant. Water
is periodically extracted from the cooling water circuit, boiler steam circuit and raw water treatment plant to manage
to acceptable levels the concentrations of salts, solids and cleaning agents in these systems. As is usual practice
for such utilities, chemicals are added to these systems to prevent harmful scale build up, corrosion and biological
problems such as bio-fouling growths or outbreaks of Legionalla species.
These waters (known as 'blowdown') are discharged into the clean water holding pond. Waters in the clean water
holding pond are withdrawn for a number of uses in the plant, including utility water, irrigation, processed shale
cooling and fire fighting water (if ever needed).
Waters from the mine water management system may also be re-used at the plant site as well as for mine water
use (e.g. haul road watering). An option exists for treated mine water to also be released via WP1 in the event of
salinity issues precluding any release to the freshwater environment. WP1 flows to marine waters.
Process waste water is generated from three areas of the demonstration plant, namely the oil recovery unit, the
gas cleaning unit, and the oil upgrading unit. Contaminants in this water include ammonia and hydrogen sulphide,
as well as some suspended solids, colloidal matter, organics, and metals. Process waste water is treated to reduce
concentrations of ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S) using a two-stage steam stripping process.
Two process waste water streams, due to the high level of contaminants expected in them relative to
environmental water quality objectives, are prohibited from release into surface water (see EA condition C4). These
are flare seal water and stripped sour water. The treated process waste water is used to moisten processed shale
which is then placed out of the mine pit, in compliance with condition C4 of the EA
Process waste water is kept separate from potentially influencing stormwater, excepting where treated sour water
is sprayed on processed shale to cool it. If not well managed, leachate from such co-disposed waste could
contaminate waters. However, the waste is deposited and managed in an out of pit waste rock placement area to
avoid such contamination.
The emergency flare would be expected to operate in the event of a plant upset or actuation of gas pressure relief
safety devices. It is understood that there has not been any emergency flaring of process gases at the plant and so
highly contaminated flare seal water does not appear to have been generated.
QER has indicated that, although steam stripping is used as the primary treatment process in the demonstration
plant, a number of alternative options are being investigated to optimise process water treatment for a future
commercial operation. This is expected to have benefits for solid waste management options and void water
quality, as mass loads of contaminants applied in cooling processed shale would be significantly reduced (with
consequent improvement in fluxes to leachate).
Limits for discharges to surface waters are contained in the environmental authority. Monitoring information for
release events was compared to the above limits to check for compliance on advised release dates of 3 and 5 April
2012. Results were reported in certificates of analysis by the NATA registered ALS Group (analysis certificates
EB1209380 and EB1209555 respectively). These certificates showed that water quality of the releases complied
with the release limits.

21
Quality control is an important part of any sampling exercise. The purpose of a quality control scheme is to check
whether bias, sample contamination, or analyte loss could affect the results, and so invalidate the process. EHP
thus sought information from QER on the quality assurance measures applied to water release monitoring.
Information was supplied by QER’s consultant water tester. This showed that monitoring was conducted in
accordance with written work instructions, using accredited laboratories and calibrated field instruments,
appropriate bottles for the analyses and using QA documentation.
Water samples, depending upon the quality parameter of interest, have various maximum recommended holding
times between the taking of the sample and submission to a laboratory. This is due to the fact that the quantity of
some substances in the sample changes over time, despite using recommended preservation techniques. The
maximum holding times and other quality assurance are recommended in the Department’s water monitoring and
sampling manual (EHP 2010). Compliance with these sampling and monitoring methods is required by condition
H13 of QER’s EA.
The holding times for water release samples taken on 3 and 5 April 2012 were compared to the recommended
maximum holding times. Checks were made assuming that the written work procedures for the sampling (e.g.
correct bottles, icing samples) had been complied with. The results of this check identified that the recommended
holding times for suspended solids and nutrients were exceeded. All other samples were analysed within the
recommended holding times.
Another important aspect of quality assurance, as recommended by the EHP water monitoring and sampling
manual (EHP 2010), is the taking of control samples. Control samples include:
• field spikes—uncontaminated sample water contained and preserved in an identical fashion to the field samples
is spiked with contaminants of interest and accompanies the field samples during the sampling. Analysis of the
spiked sample quantifies any analyte loss via comparison to the spiked concentration
• field, transport and container blanks—uncontaminated samples of the media (e.g. water) contained, handled (for
example filtered) and preserved in an identical fashion to the field samples are analysed and measures of
introduced contaminant (if any) are used to quantify and trace contamination problems associated with the
sampling methods and materials.
These requirements reflect recommendations in relevant Australian standards (AS/NZS 5667.1:1998) and the
National Water Quality Guidelines (ANZECC/ ARMCANZ 2000). Advice from QER was that control samples were
not used in the water testing program, unlike the situation with QER’s stack and dioxin testing programs, where
such is routine.
On 26 October 2012, EHP provided recommendations to QER in relation to the need for control samples to be
taken, in order to ensure sound quality control. Quality control is an integral component of water quality
measurement as it increases confidence in the monitoring data obtained. QER has committed to improving quality
assurance in accordance with the prescribed QA requirements.
During the inspection, some improvements to bunding of chemicals were recommended to QER. These centred on
having adequate splash protection to prevent leaks over the bund wall for liquids stored adjacent to bund edges
and not leaving chemicals temporarily outside bunded areas whilst not in use. QER responded positively to these
suggestions and immediately instituted measures to avoid such occurrences in the future. There is no evidence
that the materials handling described caused any environmental harm.
5.2 Persistent organic pollutants–Dioxins
Dioxins is the name given to a group of chemicals called polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF). They are not intentionally produced, but rather they are unwanted by-
products of some combustion processes and chemical processes such as paper pulp bleaching and the
manufacturing of chlorinated pesticides. They are also produced naturally by bushfires.
Dioxins, when released into the environment, have shown a tendency to accumulate in the food chain, particularly
in animal fat, dairy products, and fish. Another property of dioxins is their poor affinity to water and greater affinity to
precipitate out and become adsorbed onto particles. This means that there is greater chance of finding them
adsorbed onto particles than dissolved into water. Hence, the most likely situations to find them include air
emissions containing particulates, ash and sediments of waters, rather than dissolved in the water itself.
QER included monitoring to check for presence of dioxins in its environmental monitoring and waste
characterisation programs. Monitoring for dioxins is undertaken for air emissions, particulate recovered from oil
processing, processed shale from the process and stream sediments downstream of the processed shale
placement area. Dioxins in general contain complex mixtures of different PCDD, PCDF.

22
The quantities of various dioxins and furans found cannot be summarised as some of them exhibit only a tiny
fraction of the toxicity of others. For environmental and health risk assessments, the concept of toxic equivalency
(TEQ) has thus been developed to describe the cumulative toxicity of complex mixtures of these compounds
(Ahlborg et al., 1992).
The environmental authority is based on this best practice approach, and hence limits are expressed using the
concept of toxic equivalents. This approach involves assigning individual toxicity equivalency factors (called TEFs)
to the dioxin and furan congeners in terms of their relative toxicity compared to the most carcinogenic form, 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).
In this schema, the concentration of the most toxic congener (i.e. 2,3,7,8-TCDD) is assigned a weight or toxicity
equivalency factor (TEF ) of one. The other congeners are then given weightings proportionate to their toxicity as
compared to the most toxic one. For example, a congener that was half as toxic would be assigned a TEF value of
0.5.
The toxic equivalency (TEQ) of a mixture is then calculated by multiplying the concentrations of individual
congeners by their respective TEF, and then adding the individual TEQs to obtain a total TEQ concentration for the
mixture. There are several schemes that have been developed based on the relative toxicities compared to 2,3,7,8-
TCDD. The environmental authority adopts use of the TEF values promulgated by the World Health Organisation.
In stream sediment monitoring, an additional quality step is adopted. Sediment sampling is standardised to the <63
micron sediment size fraction so that variation in particle size is removed as a source of uncertainty. This is
consistent with recommendations for sediment contamination in the National Water Quality Guidelines (ANZECC
/ARMCANZ 2000).
There are different conventions for how to calculate TEQ values for compounds that are not detected. Three
common ways are:
• the lower bound method in which the summation of the TEF values, in which the values below the detection
level are calculated as 0 ng/kg
• the medium bound method in which the summation of the TEF values, in which the values below the detection
level are calculated as ½ the detection level
• the upper bound method, in which the values below the detection level are calculated as the actual detection
level.
The environmental authority limit, for compliance purposes, adopts the lower bound TEQ i.e. zero (0) is substituted
into the formula for any non-detectable compound.
The environmental authority requires that the processing activity must be undertaken in accordance with best
practice environmental management, to reduce or eliminate dioxin production and in accordance with the waste
management hierarchy and principles of the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Policy 2000. This
policy included a waste management hierarchy which prescribes a preference for avoidance of the production of
waste over the disposal of waste.
The environmental authority adopts a maximum concentration of 10 ng TEQ/kg (equal to 10 parts per trillion) that
should be avoided in wastes produced (e.g. processed shale) and complied with in stream sediments downstream
of the site. There are also separate limits for dioxins in air emissions which are discussed separately in section 5.3
of this report.
Processed shale
The testing program for dioxins uses an internationally recognised laboratory (Asure Quality, New Zealand) for
performing the dioxin analyses. The program includes analysis of samples, blanks and reference material (power
station ash) for quality assurance purposes. Recoveries are also estimated using carbon (13C) isotopes. Results
for dioxins in processed shale are provided in Table 4.

23
Table 4: Results for dioxins in technology demonstration plant processed shale.
Dioxin concentration pg/g (WHO-TEQ)
Date
Lower bound (EA Limit = 10) Upper bound
July 2011 0.0043 0.0131
November 2011 4.06 4.24
December 2011 0.232 5.26
January 2012 0.405 3.63
June 2012 0 1.63
These results show that processed shale to date has a maximum concentration (lower bound basis) at around 40%
of the EA limit. When one looks at the upper bound value or absolute worst case scenario (which is conservative in
assuming that dioxins not detected are all present at the limit of detection), compliance with the limit is still
achieved.
Solids in product stream – Centrifuge solids
Another potential source for dioxin release is via the off-gas stream, which is extracted from the top of the retort.
QER investigated this possibility by conducting dioxin testing on solids centrifuged from the oil vapours extracted
from the retort and did not find detectable concentrations of dioxins.
Stream sediments
Stream sediments in a downstream location are required to be monitored for dioxins following any discharge event.
Sampling was carried out in May 2012 after the April 2012 discharge event from the mine water management
system (Table 5).
Table 5: Results for dioxins in stream sediments.
Dioxin concentration pg/g (WHO-TEQ) (<63µm)
Date
Lower bound (EA Limit = 10) Upper bound
May 2012 4.65 4.83
Conclusions
The above results show that QER is complying with the requirements to avoid, to the greatest practicable extent,
any production of dioxins. QER is also responsible for managing the ex-pit processed shale placement area which
contains the dioxin contaminated processed shale generated by the former operators of the ATP, Southern Pacific
Petroleum. The fact that dioxin levels in downstream sediments are below environmental authority limits infers
success in ensuring continuing encapsulation of this material.
5.3 Air emissions and management
Emission limits
In order to assess compliance with the environmental authority, the air emission limits are relevant. These are
reproduced in Table 6. These air contaminant emission limits apply specifically to the two major emission sources,
namely the dryer regenerative thermal oxidiser (‘RTOx’) and the plant thermal oxidiser (‘TOx’).

24
Table 6: Air release limits specified in the QER Environmental Authority.
Air quality
indicator
Limit type Release points Mass emission
limit (Note 1)
Concentration
release limit
Sulphur Dioxide,
SO2
Maximum RP1 and RP2
Combined (Plant TO +
RTO)
8 grams/second -
Nitrogen Oxides,
NOx
Maximum RP1 and RP2
RTO)
3 grams/second -
Hexavalent
Chromium (CrVI)
Maximum
(12 months
rolling average)
RP1 and RP2
RTO)
0.11
milligrams/second
-
Dioxins Maximum RP1 and RP2 (Plant
TO, RTO)
- 0.1 nanograms
TEQ(WHO) per
standard cubic metre
(dry) (Note 2)
Particulates Maximum RP1 and RP2
RTO)
1 gram/second -
Particulates Maximum RP1 and RP2 (Plant
TO, RTO)
- 50 milligrams per
normal cubic metre
(dry) (Note 3)
Target
Maximum
(Note 4)
RP1 (Plant TO) - 20 milligrams per
normal cubic metre
(dry) (Note 3)
RP1 (Plant TO) - 40 milligrams per
normal cubic metre
(dry) (Note 3)
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC),
expressed as n-
propane
Maximum
RP2 (Plant RTO) 20 milligrams per
normal cubic metre
(dry) (Note 3)
Notes:
1 - Mass emission limits are for the aggregate sum of mass emissions from the two release points: plant TO (RP1) and dryer RTO (RP2).
2 - Oxygen reference level for plant TO (RP1) is 11%, however there is no oxygen reference level for dryer RTO (RP2).
3 - Oxygen reference level for plant TO (RP1) is 3%, however there is no oxygen reference level for dryer RTO (RP2).
4 - Thermal oxidiser serving plant TO (RP1) must use all endeavours to comply with the target maximum of 20 milligrams per cubic metre at 3% oxygen dry, but may exceed this
where necessary for testing the retorting technology.
For some air contaminants, there are no specific and relevant source emission standards or guidelines. This is the
case for odour causing substances such as H2S, thiophene and carbonyl sulphide. In these cases, the assessment
approach relies on checking whether pollution control measures known to be effective in treating these substances
are installed and operated effectively. Emission concentration for odourants may also be developed using the site
specific dispersion modelling results (such as dilution factors) and odour threshold values (from literature), as
follows:
• Stack emission standard = odour threshold x (Minimum Dilution factor ÷ worst case peak to mean ratio)

25
For larger scale activities, EHP would typically be concerned with both the mass emission rate, as this influences
ambient concentrations of air contaminants, and the flue gas concentration, as this is reflective of best practice and
can affect visual aesthetics. An example would be particulate emissions. A mass emission rate may protect an
ambient air quality goal for particulate less than 10 microns at a sensitive place but high concentrations may
appear as dark smoke belching from stacks. Also, if the mass rate was set too high, there may be little air-shed
capacity left to allow a new industry to establish nearby.
Best practice management of an air shed by the administering authority thus usually involves limiting mass
emission rates to ensure ambient air quality objectives are met as well as concentrations to ensure a level playing
field for industry. This also ensures that one industry does not consume the total assimilative capacity of an air-
shed and allows capacity in the air-shed for future industry expansion.
Due to the relatively small scale of the TD plant as compared to the previous operation, no specific limits on mass
emission rates or concentrations for odour are included as EA conditions. Instead, the EA conditions prohibit the
activity causing any nuisance due to noxious or offensive odours. Assessment in relation to odour focuses on
whether best practice odour avoidance and treatment has been incorporated and whether any nuisance has been
caused.
Review of existing information
After reviewing the air monitoring reports supplied prior to the site visit, additional information, not previously
provided in summary reports, was requested including:
• clarification regarding whether the sour water stripper and oil upgrading plant had been commissioned at the
time of stack monitoring
• identification of plant areas operating at the time of sampling. For example, the thermal oxidiser feed consists of
gases from (a) gas treatment plant (ammonia and hydrogen sulphide removal), (b) oil up-grader, (c) oil tank
farm, (d) processed shale moistening unit and (e) off-gas from the process water stripper. These operational
records need to be provided with the monitoring data
• stack gas exit velocity, temperature and volume flow rates
• further, stack testing summary reports did not provide information on toxicity equivalency factors adopted for
reporting dioxins and PAH concentration values.
On-site collection of information
EHP staff held a number of meetings with QER engineers and environmental professionals on 23 and 24 October
2012 to discuss the plant operations in details. The purpose of on-site meetings was for QER to provide additional
information determined to be necessary following the abovementioned preliminary review, and for EHP to collect
on-site information and verifiable evidence on environmental performance. Representatives of New Environmental
Quality (New EQ), QER's stack testing scientists, also attended to discuss the stack monitoring methods and
QA/QC requirements for the various monitoring methods. The items discussions are summarised below.
The need for the stack testing summary reports provided to EHP to include plant operational data applying at the
time the testing was carried out. This is required by EA monitoring conditions and provides information which
greatly assists in the interpretation of the air emission results. QER clarified that the data was readily available as it
is recorded on their information system, but had simply not been provided in the summary reports. After the
meeting, QER provided the plant operational data corresponding to those times when the emissions monitoring
took place. These data showed the plant to be operating in a variety of typical states during monitoring. QER
advised that it had instructed the stack testing company to include this information in all future air emission reports.
The review also sought detail about air monitoring methods. New EQ staff provided detailed information on the
methods employed for the sampling and analysis of air contaminants. The monitoring was found to be in
accordance with recognised methods.
For auditing purposes, EHP officers also selected at random one particular stack monitoring report to audit how the
monitoring was conducted and the notified emissions rates calculated from the corresponding analysis certificates.
The monitoring date chosen was December 2011. Using a spread sheet program, New EQ scientists demonstrated
in detail how the sampling and analyses were conducted and how the emissions were calculated. This confirmed
that information in the summary reports advising compliance with EA conditions was fully traceable to
contemporaneous stack parameter measurements, quality assurance checks and analysis certificates. This
demonstrates that high confidence can be placed in the reported data.

Environmental Review of QER's Oil Shale Plant

Environmental Review of QER's Oil Shale Plant

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Similar to Environmental Review of QER's Oil Shale Plant

Similar to Environmental Review of QER's Oil Shale Plant (20)

Environmental Review of QER's Oil Shale Plant